The Rhodes University interim court interdict remains in full force as Grahamstown High Court Judge Murray Louw determines whether to make it final.
The Rhodes University interim court interdict remains in full force as Grahamstown High Court Judge Murray Louw determines whether to make it final.
The matter was heard on Thursday 3 November in the high court in Grahamstown.
The matter concerns the interim interdict imposed on 20 April this year by the Grahamstown High Court following protests on campus against rape culture and unrest sparked by the publication on social media of the so-called #RU Reference List.
University spokesperson Catherine Deiner said Judge Louw had heard the case and was working on the judgment.
“All that remains is for the judge to deliver his verdict. There is no indication as to when this might happen. The interim interdict remains in force until the judgment is delivered,” said Deiner.
Corinne Knowles, one of around 38 Rhodes University staff members, including academics, who were granted leave by the high court to intervene in the matter, confirmed that they were now waiting for the judge to deliver his verdict.
“Judge Murray Louw heard the case and he is now working on his judgment. We are waiting to hear and it could take a couple of weeks,” Knowles told Grocott’s Mail.
“A lot was said on Thursday and it took the whole day. Both sides made their arguments. When the judgment is ready, we will be told and will go to court. If there are enough of us it will be read out, otherwise it will be passed on to us to read in our own time. That is all we know at the moment,” said Knowles.
Those opposing the move to make the interdict permanent are being represented by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute (Seri).
The students named as fourth, fifth and sixth respondents in the interdict are Sian Ferguson, Yolanda
Dyantyi and Simamkele Heleni. Also named as respondents are the Rhodes University Students Representative Council, Rhodes students engaging in unlawful activities on the campus and persons engaging in or associating themselves with unlawful activities on the campus.
Opposing the interdict are the 38 staff members.
In a statement on their website, Seri says: “The interdict restrains a wide variety of persons, including the three students and concerned staff, from ‘encouraging, facilitating and/or promoting any unlawful activities’ at the University.
“The lawfulness of granting such a wide-ranging interdict against an unascertainable class of persons was not tested in the court.
Instead, the interdict was granted after the court heard oral evidence from five members of the University’s management and administrative staff.”
